Detailed Specification – This is an individual piece of work
For this coursework, you are to design a User Interface that would demonstrate understanding and application of all considerations discussed throughout the User Interface Design lectures and tutorials, as per below:
| The University of Greenwich is engaged in discussing and investigating about ways to support sustainability and environmentally friendly practices. Within this context, you and your colleagues have been challenged to design an application that supports one of the two different areas:
· Supporting people interested in monitoring biodiversity in cities. · Supporting the reduction of food waste in small restaurants, cafés or bars. You will need to choose one of these two areas for your project. More specifically, your task is to design a mid-fidelity prototype for use on a mobile phone and design a set of functionalities that can help people achieve these goals. Feel free to come up with any functionalities that you see fit for this purpose. On a practical level, make sure it is clear in your designs how the user navigates between the various screens. You must sketch/design an interface design and justify why your proposed solution goes in the right direction. Furthermore, you need to create and plan an evaluation framework that would allow you to assess to what extent your assumptions were correct. The final digital prototype should demonstrate the proposed mobile experience with the aim of providing ‘proof of concept’. This prototype should be an interactive prototype demonstrating as a minimum the interactions for the scenarios identified and described in the report. Please note that it is the application of the User Interface Design theory that is most important in this coursework. |
Deliverables
- 1) A Final Report:
This report should be around 2500 words, it should be presented in a professional structure and it should be underpinned by credible references in the Harvard style. The report should include:
- Professional written communication and referencing a report of professional standard and formatting, professional writing style and English proficiency, and use of appropriate referencing in Harvard Style of relevant sources for the coursework. (5%)
- Background which should consist of: (A) a discussion of relevant considerations in user interface design, and (B) a review of relevant sets of guidelines and standards. You must discuss what of the above will be incorporated into the design of your mid-fidelity prototype. (15%)
- User groups a justified identification of the user group(s) and two appropriate user personas and two scenarios relevant to the design of your mid-fidelity prototype. (15%)
- Visual Design A selection and justification of the application of colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of your prototype. (10%)
- Evaluation Discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques, especially taking into consideration the design cycle. In other words, you need to show how would you create and plan for your evaluation framework. (15%)
- Critical Reflection which should critically reflect on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. Discuss what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. This must not be a summary of the report. (10%)
- 2) A mid-fidelity prototype:
Submit your prototype AND your report as a pdf (two separate files). You need to submit the original file.
- Design process and mid-fidelity prototype Evidence of the design process and clear linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype should be demonstrated, which will provide evidence of effective User Interface Desig The prototype should be annotated in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. (30%)
Assessment Criteria
For further details on assessment criteria, please see the Marking rubric below.
| COMP1773 Rubric | 0-29% Fail | 30-39% Fail | 40-49% Satisfactory | 50-59% Good | 60-69% Very Good | 70-79% Excellent | 80-100% Exceptional |
| D1 Knowledge User groups: Personas and scenarios | Little to no justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are absent or lack relevance for the coursework topic. | Poor justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are present but poorly constructed, have little relevance for the coursework topic. | A satisfactory justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are present and of satisfactory standard, though the relevance of the content for the coursework topic could be improved. | A good justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are present and of a good standard, with some good content relevant for the coursework topic. | A very good justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are of a very good standard, with some very good content relevant for the coursework topic. | An excellent justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are of excellent standard, with some excellent content relevant for the coursework topic. | An exceptional justification for the identification of the user group(s). The two user personas and two scenarios are of exceptional standard, with some exceptional content relevant for the coursework topic. |
| D1 Knowledge Visual Design | A lack of justification and selection of the application of barely relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | A poor of justification and selection of the application of somewhat relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | A satisfactory justification and selection of the application of relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | A good justification and selection of the application of relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | A very good justification and selection of the application of relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | An excellent justification and selection of the application of relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. | An exceptional justification and selection of the application of relevant colour theory, font terminology, layout design and the graphic design elements in the design of the prototype. |
| D1 Knowledge / D3 Evaluation Evaluation | Barely to no discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques and its relevance for assessing the prototype. | A poor discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques. | A satisfactory discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques. | A good discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques. | A very good discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques. | An excellent discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques.. | An exceptional discussion and justification of relevant evaluation techniques. |
| D1 Knowledge Design process and mid-fidelity prototype | Little to no evidence of the design process and no clear linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and does not provide evidence of effective User Interface Design. The prototype has no or little annotation in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Poor evidence of the design process and not very clear linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is poor. The prototype has limited annotation in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Satisfactory evidence of the design process and some clear linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is satisfactory. The prototype has annotations in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Good evidence of the design process and clear and good linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is good. The prototype has good annotations in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Very good evidence of the design process and clear and very good linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is very good. The prototype has very good annotations in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Excellent evidence of the design process and clear and excellent linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is excellent. The prototype has excellent annotations in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. | Exceptional evidence of the design process and clear and exceptional linkage between the points discussed in the report and the prototype has been demonstrated, and evidence of effective User Interface Design is exceptional. The prototype has exceptional annotations in the report (with screenshots) to explicitly demonstrate this linkage. |
| D2 Research Background research | There is almost no evidence of engagement in relevant background reading. There is no real understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design, and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. |
There is some but little engagement in relevant background reading. There is little understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. |
Satisfactory reference is made to background reading, but it is limited in nature and draws on a restricted number of authors. There is satisfactory understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. |
Some good relevant reading is evident and demonstrates good understanding of the issues. There is a good understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. |
A very good range of appropriate literature is used. Views are discussed and arguments presented with reference to this literature. There is a very good understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. |
You provide an extensive range of current and appropriate literature to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide excellent commentary. There is an excellent understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards. | An extensively wide range of current and appropriate literature is presented to support your strong arguments and different perspectives, and you provide exceptional commentary. There is an exceptional understanding of relevant considerations in user interface design and relevant sets of guidelines and standards |
| D3 Evaluation /D6 Employability Critical Reflection | Barely or no reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. Little to no discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Poor reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. A poor discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Satisfactory reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. A satisfactory discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Good reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. A good discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Very good reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. A very good discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Excellent reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. Excellent discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. | Exceptional reflections on your own personal experience of investigating and designing a user interface for a product. Exceptional discussion of what you have learned, how the report/prototype could be improved, and how you think you will apply this in practice. |
| D4 Communication / D5 Referencing Professional written communication and referencing | No structure presented and the assessment includes a significant number of errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and this impedes flow. Further proofreading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing. Lack of understanding about the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and/or the referencing list with some significant inconsistencies and omissions. There is a clear need for academic support. |
Little structure and the work is hampered by errors in Standard English. It lacks academic style and does not flow well. Further proof-reading clearly needed and additional support for academic writing. Confusion about the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and/or the referencing list with some important inconsistencies and omissions |
The structure is satisfactory overall but does need improvement. Errors appear in the use of Standard English (possibly due to poor proof reading). The work does not flow well in several places and this affects clarity. Satisfactory use of the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and the referencing list with several important inconsistencies. |
A good structure for the most part. The work observes many academic conventions in style and content and is mostly presented in Standard English, with some errors and omissions. Some sentence structure also needs revision, and this can affect the flow of your work in places. Good use of the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and the reference list with some inconsistencies |
A very good structure with clear presentation and organisation of ideas. The work observes almost all academic conventions in style, content and is presented well, mostly using Standard English throughout. The majority of this work uses a style which flows well. Very good use of the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and the reference list with some minor inconsistencies. |
Excellent structure and very well organised ideas. The written English is of a very high standard and the work observes all academic conventions in style and content. Excellent flow and style and a pleasure to read. Excellent use of the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and the reference list. |
This coursework is exceptionally well structured and organised. The written English is of an extremely high standard and observes all academic conventions in style and content. The assessment flows exceptionally well and is a pleasure to read. Exceptional use of the Harvard referencing style both in the in-text citations and the reference list. |
